Those who disparage Dee for the so-called “us/yhem”-mentality, should do well to remember that it is precisely because ISLAM teaches a hateful “us/them”-doctrine that it is dangerous.

Does this mean that we also must adopt an “us/them”-mentality?
Unfortunately, yes, to a certain extent.
A criminal forces upon the rest of society the necessity of acting/behaving in ways it rather would not (for example by depriving of an individual’s freedom), but such actions are not for that reason unjustified.

The Wajabi variety teaches that…mainstream moderate varieties of Islam don’t. You are foolish to form your view on Islam based on narrowing looking at a cross section of nutjobs in Jiddah and pretending that mainstream muslims buy into Zawahiri’s bullshit sophistry. Newsflash…they don’t. That’s why al Qaeda has been so crippled in the past few yrs. They attack mainstream muslims too often and claim it is justified because they are no longer “real muslims”. Guss who doesn’t see things that way…the mainstream muslim communities all across the middle east who hate al Qaeda every bit as much as you do if not more.

And this is the United States of America. The actions of this administration aren’t unjustified simply because we were attacked. They are unjustified because the administration is legally bound to uphold the backbone of our nation, the US Constitution, and all the rights it affords the ciizens who “elected” these public officials.

Maybe you should try like…reading about the nuances of the muslim communities and how they feel about the muslim/false muslim/infidel proposition Zawahiri won’t shut up about. You may…learn something. :o

Yawn.
I am perfctly aware of splinter groups of Islam like the ahmadiyyahs, the dhawodi borats, ishmaelites and various strains of sufism (and, for that matter, the bahaii’s many of whom consider themselves to be muslims), all of whom have in common a commitment to the the bitani tradition, i.e, the mystical, allegorical approach to both readings of the Quran, and a free interpretation of the hadith tradition (the Ahmadiyyahs, for example, deny the hadiths wholesale as legitimate traditions).
Furthermore, these groups can be considered genuine in their desire to promote peace&love;and brotherhood, and their thoughts that this is inspired somehow by their particularly slanted readings of the Quran. The reason for why we may consider these proclamations genuine is these groups’ consistent behaviour of peacefulness.

But, you know what?
1. These particular groupings constitute only a single-digit percentage of those individuals claiming to be Muslims (sunnites and mainstream shias, in particular are excluded)
2. Practically all of these groups are facing severe persecution from other Muslims for being “heretics”, most Muslims do not consider these groups to be Muslim at all, but rather as apostates.
3. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, whether sunnis or shias, cling to a LITERALIST approach to both the Quran, and their (various) received hadith traditions (the significant difference between the shia and sunni hadith tradition being that shias reject hadiths said to come from Aesha (whom the shias revile), substituting for these mainly hadiths from Imam Ali).
4. And, if you do take a LITERALIST approach towards Islam, then the Wahabbis are simply more logically consistent that many other Sunni groups, and the deeply intolerant Shia Islam pronounced by Khomeini and the Iranian priesthood has a similar pre-eminence in logical consistency.
5. Both of these groupings, the Wahabbis and the “Khomeinians” are therefore those showing most fidelity to their core traditions, other, “sanitized” Islam forms only gets its more hygienic outlook by being logically inconsistent. Logical inconsistency is not a virtue, nor does it represent a source of strength from which politically viable alternatives can be formed. Precisely because the “back-to-the-roots” movements like Wahabbism are always those most consistent with the ACTUAL teachings of the Quran and the sunna (i.e, hadiths&sira;), those movements are always recurring, and are the ones into which political (-ly significant) Islam degenerates.

5. In short, there is nothing in the genuine Islamic traditions that contains the potential for making the religion of Islam into a force for change towards a more humane society. Rather, Islam as a political force has only a potential for the evil unambiguously celebrated within the traditions related to Mohammed.

No one here is suggesting fundamentalist Islam as a proposition logically leads to a more humane society. In fact that’s not even a topic of dicsussion here. Like, at all. But since you brought it up out of absolutely nowhere, lemme point out what you are desperate to avoid doing so yourself, namely the fact that the same goes for Judaism and Christianty as well.

But we aren’t only talking about fundamentalist Islam. We are also talking about the fact that the militants you love to cry about ad nauseum are in no way related (beyond the periphery) ideologically to the mainstream muslim cultures that they are doing battle with on the air waves, in taped debates, and preeminently on the internet. Zawahiri is going to get carpal tunnel from the amount of arguing he does online in his efforts to do damage control for all sorts of shit going down by other militants in the name of Islam.

When Zarkawi was still alive in Iraq, Zawahiri had to routinely demand that he couldn’t keep cutting ppl’s heads off. He was told he had to just shoot ppl instead. Not because Zawahiri didn’t want their heads chopped off necessarily, but because that sort of barbarism was KILLING his recruitment capabilities as it was bringing all of Islam agaisnt him all at once. And since the elections, oooh boy…poor Ayman has had a helluva time trying to spin the Obama election as some right wing, neocon conspiracy.

Btw, using wikipedia to look up as many different tribal groups falling within the broad spectrum of “Islam” doesn’t impress anyone here. Except maybe Dee, who is still trying to figure out what an Arab is. In the meantime, you didn’t address my points at all. Hell, you didn’t even attempt to! You simply expressed your opinion that since the fundamentalists have a more thorough argument, according to you of course, we ought to magically assume that ALL threads of Islam, irregardless of their cultural reach and numbers, are to be treated as identical to the tiny sect Zawahiri subscribes to…which is patently retarded.

Newsflash for the guy who thinks glacing at wikipedia for 15 minutes amounts to a formal education on Islamic cultural variety…mainstream muslims all over the world are generally peaceful ppl too. Haven’t you ever wondered why we don’t have 1.2 billion ppl attacking us daily? Because the ignorant caricature you love to weave of muslims has holes all through it. Durrr….

Well, as for you, who don’t know the difference between the ethnic term “tribes”, and the religious term “sects”, have already betrayed such a level of ignorance and misconception that you are entirely dismissable.

You simply expressed your opinion that since the fundamentalists have a more thorough argument, according to you of course, we ought to magically assume that ALL threads of Islam, irregardless of their cultural reac

To resolve that argument turn to the Quran and the received hadith tradition for independent study.
Before you show that you have done so, you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute with.

Perhaps because most of them are powerless to do so. Perhaps because the smarter and wealthier ones realize that an all-out-war with the West would mean the annihilation of Islam and their own societies/families. Perhaps because most of the ones who are in close enough proximity to us to attack us are distinct minorities and are just biding time until the right moment. And perhaps because many of them are non-violent and just want to live and let live. There are many possible reasons why 1.2 billion Muslims don’t attack us daily.

But I suspect that if I decided to move to a Muslim country, any Muslim country, and organize a Christian congregation there, that I would experience the peaceful nature of this religion firsthand. Muslims can move to the US, organize congregations and build mosques, and have the same legal and constitutional protections that Christians and Jews have. Same for European and other Western countries. Right here in the heart of Texas, the buckle of the Bible belt, there are several mosques within an hour’s drive of my home, and I hear no reports of violence against the worshipers there. The reverse is simply not true. Can you name me a Muslim majority country where I could go, live, and peacefully organize and practice my faith?

Perhaps because most of them are powerless to do so. Perhaps because the smarter and wealthier ones realize that an all-out-war with the West would mean the annihilation of Islam and their own societies/families. Perhaps because most of the ones who are in close enough proximity to us to attack us are distinct minorities and are just biding time until the right moment. And perhaps because many of them are non-violent and just want to live and let live. There are many possible reasons why 1.2 billion Muslims don’t attack us daily.

But I suspect that if I decided to move to a Muslim country, any Muslim country, and organize a Christian congregation there, that I would experience the peaceful nature of this religion firsthand. Muslims can move to the US, organize congregations and build mosques, and have the same legal and constitutional protections that Christians and Jews have. Same for European and other Western countries. Right here in the heart of Texas, the buckle of the Bible belt, there are several mosques within an hour’s drive of my home, and I hear no reports of violence against the worshipers there. The reverse is simply not true. Can you name me a Muslim majority country where I could go, live, and peacefully organize and practice my faith?

Turkey, Albania, Kosovo. A few others. But in general, you are not incorrect—the Muslim world all too rarely practices the tolerance we in the West take for granted.

Turkey, Albania, Kosovo. A few others. But in general, you are not incorrect—the Muslim world all too rarely practices the tolerance we in the West take for granted.

A quick google of persecution of Christians in these countries reveals that it is certainly more difficult to be a Christian there than it is to be a Muslim here. Even with Turkey’s history of attempting to be a secular nation, threats against Christians are pretty common.

With Kosovo, it may just be a matter of getting back at so-called Christian Serbs, however. If I were going to pick a Muslim nation to live in, Kosovo would be high on the list, since they generally like Americans.

Turkey, Albania, Kosovo. A few others. But in general, you are not incorrect—the Muslim world all too rarely practices the tolerance we in the West take for granted.

A quick google of persecution of Christians in these countries reveals that it is certainly more difficult to be a Christian there than it is to be a Muslim here. Even with Turkey’s history of attempting to be a secular nation, threats against Christians are pretty common.

With Kosovo, it may just be a matter of getting back at so-called Christian Serbs, however. If I were going to pick a Muslim nation to live in, Kosovo would be high on the list, since they generally like Americans.

Agree that Turkey’s much-vaunted secularism has its limits; it would be much harder to start a church in many areas of the country than those mosques in Texas you speak of, I am sure. However, I would imagine it wouldn’t be very hard to live as a Protestant Christian in Istanbul.

As for Kosovo—you’re most certainly seeing data on violence between ethnic Albanians and Serbs, not on religious persecution. Most Kosovars are about as religious as I am, for what it’s worth.

As for Albania proper…well, some 30% of Albanians are Christian to start with, and the Muslim majority is largely secular to boot, so I can’t imagine what sort of “persecution” of Christians goes on there.

That said—again, your point about the lack of secularism and tolerance in many Muslim countries is well-taken.

Well, as for you, who don’t know the difference between the ethnic term “tribes”, and the religious term “sects”, have already betrayed such a level of ignorance and misconception that you are entirely dismissable.

You simply expressed your opinion that since the fundamentalists have a more thorough argument, according to you of course, we ought to magically assume that ALL threads of Islam, irregardless of their cultural reac

To resolve that argument turn to the Quran and the received hadith tradition for independent study.
Before you show that you have done so, you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute with.

Wha? I know what a sect is and I know what a tribe is. The groups you are talking abut are both sects and tribes. And youaren’t attempting to counter my points…as usual. I am well aware of the sorts of things that are in the Talmud, Quaran, NT, etc. You need to READ my arguments befoe you try to “resolve” them. You are avoiding that because you are wrong and I’m not letting you wiggle out of your own ignorance.

Again, your caricature of Islam as a body of thought that requires the us/them mentality you have ascribed to it isn’t honest. It does’t require that. You are confusing what is said within the Quaran with what is the modern mainstream religion of Islam, which are, as is always the case with religions today, completely different and cherry picked. You are simply trying to find justification for your attempts to conflate generic muslims with militant fringes of Islamists and/or terrorism.